Record the Gertz limit on presumed damages

Key facts

Human involvement

Yellow · Close supervision

How AI is used

From the pleading, record whether the file treats the plaintiff as a private individual, whether it treats the defendant as a publisher or broadcaster, and whether the damages sought are described as presumed, as compensation for actual injury, or as punitive. Do not decide what damages are recoverable.

What the lawyer must review

The lawyer applies Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974). The Court held that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, the States may define for themselves the appropriate standard of liability for a publisher or broadcaster of defamatory falsehood injurious to a private individual. The opinion says at least this conclusion obtains where the substance of the defamatory statement makes substantial danger to reputation apparent. The Court then held that the States may not permit recovery of presumed or punitive damages, at least when liability is not based on a showing of knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. The syllabus states that a private defamation plaintiff who establishes liability under a less demanding standard than the New York Times test may recover compensation only for actual injury. The opinion says juries assess punitive damages in wholly unpredictable amounts bearing no necessary relation to the actual harm caused. That sentence is the Court's reason for the constitutional limit. It is not a statutory cap and it does not enact a requirement that damages bear a rational relationship to the harm. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), is the case Gertz quotes for actual malice: knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The lawyer decides whether this plaintiff and this defendant are inside the holding.

Written for / version

United States versionUS